Come over to sid. It's "unstable" in terms that it changes a lot. Sid is almost ALWAYS newer than Ubuntu. Because every 6 months Ubuntu draws a line in the sand and says "Nope, we're stopping here." Sure you get bug fixes and can go through and find a ppa that backports. As long as that ppa developer doesn't stop. Then you find another PPA. But it has a different naming convention and it's a (@#* nightmare.
I would go to Sid except for exactly what you described...it's called unstable for a reason, one day I will try to update my system and it will break. Only reason Sid works so well as the baseline for Ubuntu is because they take that unstable and manage it as it if was a stable branch, keeping it patched, dependencies working, etc. Running Ubuntu is like having a happy medium between debian stable and unstable.
You don't see people messing with The Iliad
I'll see your Iliad and raise you an "Odyssey"
O Brother, Where Art Thou? - Starring George Clooney
... then maybe it's time to switch to Fedora?
Ah yes, Arch, the distro that tries to convince its users that it's a BSD (hint: aur is NOT the same as ports), and contributes nothing upstream. Are you guys still throwing everything in
I would say Arch is trying to be a blend of BSD/Gentoo without all that compiling everything nonsense. Very easy to build/maintain a minimal system, no release cycles, and piece of cake to unofficially distribute your own software packages to the rest of the Arch community. Arch is probably one of the most promising ideas for a distro we have seen in a long time.
"It doesn't much signify whom one marries for one is sure to find out next morning it was someone else." -- Rogers